So the hatemail dubbed me THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!! (sic) So I will wear that with pride, cuntfuckers. It's like The Outlaw Josie Wales only better, right? I mean, did he have a fully capitalised THE, an extra-long dramatic pause, and two exclamation marks? No, he did not. Chickenshit.

2 males placing their penis up each others rear ends, know that their penis

is covered in dung. Then place their penis in each others mouths with their

dunged penis to ejaculate..!

Proves the 2 males prefer the smell and taste of dung..!!

THE....Sodomite Hal Duncan is a DEFINITE dung lover..!!

p.s. please post this, so thers may comment

((((( shanks-lot )))))

****

Needless to say, I've forwarded this to his service provider's complaints department, but I thought I'd post it here "so thers [sic] may comment".I thought about emailing my response directly but I decided a post would be more fun, all in all, and less likely to get me banned for abuse.Besides, as an ex-programmer I know how an email address can be faked, so I'll wait to hear what www.*******.com have to say before, oh, I don't know, making his email public and inviting readers to make their comments directly to him, say, or to send him any gay pornography they can get their hands on.

Dear "barry",

Thank you for your charming email of bigoted homophobia.It amused me no end, I must say, with its witty mimicry of the quiz show question format (I can only presume you are an avid viewer of commercial television in preference to, for example, reading books), its air-tight syllogistic logic (compelling, I say, compelling) and its prurient interest as to what I do with my cock (though I must say I'm confused as to how this is any concern of yours).I am flattered also that you hold me in such high esteem, referring to me as not simply "Hal Duncan" but as "THE.... [Sodomite] Hal Duncan", with the definite article, capitalised indeed, and followed by four ellipses points, no less (as opposed to the... conventional three).This does rather appeal to my ego, I have to admit.In subsequent public appearances I must remember to insist on being introduced as "THE.... Hal Duncan".

In this spirit of hyperbole, I may even adopt your cunning use of two exclamation marks (as opposed to the... conventional one).While many consider this sort of over-emphasis to be superfluous and gauche, a marker of immaturity,inadequate education and/or low intellect, I myself think that this sort of grammatical breach does not necessarily prove that one is a puerile, ignorant cretin. Context is everything, after all.So, personally, I look for other indicators in the actual content of the discourse before judging someone on the basis of their inability to understand the simplest standards of punctuation: a flagrant disregard for Leech's politeness principles, say, as indication of immaturity; a blinkered assumption of the universality of one's own parochial mores, for example, as indication ofignorance; crudeness of rational argumentation, for instance, as evidence of mental deficiency.Only with the presence of these factors, I feel, does it become justified to label someone an infantile and under-educated imbecile.Anyway, all of this is by way of saying that henceforth I shall be sorely tempted to insist on being introduced as "THE.... Hal Duncan!!"

In fact, I may even follow you in the use of the word "Sodomite", capitalisation and all.As I'm sure you're aware, I am proud to declare myself, metaphorically speaking, "a citizen of Sodom".The term "homosexual" has always struck me as a tad clinical, while "gay", as much as I understand the desire to apply a positive and self-affirming term, is rather too associated, for my liking, with the insipid and shallow happiness of the "gay community", the "gay village".It is a term too cosy in its declawing of deviance, I feel, one that seeks to assure our safety from intolerance by painting unconventional sexuality in the bright colours of the rainbow flag, as a joyful thing, natural and worthy of celebration, but one which ultimately, in doing so, also renders society and its mores safe from us.My general preference, then, is for the term "queer" as a confrontational assertion of a sexual identity which is defiantly deviant, one which implicitly declares that "it's none of your fucking business who I fuck, cocksucker."As someone with more than a passing interest in religion and mythology, however, I do find the term "Sodomite" appealing in so far as it presents this same confrontational attitude to heteronormativity in the religious terms of those most active in their intolerance, the sort who feel the need to email strangers out of the blue and express their infantile and ignorant idiocy uninvited.

When the zealots of the world see liberal society as a new Sodom (or Babylon, for that matter), then to say that one is a Sodomite, a citizen of Sodom, becomes, I think, an act of reclamation, of valorisation.It is to say that the homodoxy of those who revere Jerusalem, Mecca or Rome is predated by the heterodoxic splendours of ancient Sodom, that in those societies of the Fertile Crescent which gave us mathematics, writing, agriculture, democracy -- in short, civilisation -- the "faggots" (and the "whores") were not reviled as second-class citizens but were rather deeply integral to the structure of this wondrously pagan society, often as priests (or priestesses), and thus that we "faggots" (and "whores") were and are foundational to Western society as a whole, creating the culture that anyone beyond the mental age of twelve with a rudimentary education and half a brain cell might well consider themself fortunate to have been born within.

Further, I do rather relish the explicit nature of the term, its ability to conjure up the image of anal penetration, to transgress the taboo simply by naming the act, the insertion of penis into anus, this fundamental breach of mores in the breaching of another's fundament.It is an interesting taboo, this abhorrence associated with the spearing of a sphincter offering up a world of analysis if one takes a Freudian interpretation to the deep coupling (forgive the pun) of an image of anal incursion and affects of disgust and anger, shame and revulsion.It is perhaps somewhat mischievous on my part, I admit, but where the moralists of society betray their own anxieties and neuroses over the matter they rather present me with a button I can hardly resist pushing.The rogue in me relishes the discomfort of these inadequates, I confess, when a word like "Sodomite" invokes the image of a glans slick with lube pressing against a sphincter, a rigid phallus pressuring for entry, pushing in just a little at first, halting at the tightening and then sliding in slowly as muscles relax to admit it, sliding in deeper, the soft tissues of the orifice grasping the shaft, tickling the frenulum, pleasuring both participants more and more with each thrust, slow and gentle or hard and fast, to a point of exquisite orgasmic bliss.Yes, I do rather revel in the way some are unsettled by the sordid picture of sexual ecstasy, by the summoning of this taboo act, the fucking of an arse.

So, yes, I think from now on I must insist on being introduced as "THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!!"

I do however feel that I should correct the misapprehension evidenced in your email in the notion that being a "Sodomite" proves that one is also a "DEFINITE dung lover!!"I find your use of "dung" a curious choice in context, I should add here, associated as it is with animal excrement rather than human and tonally inconsistent with the somewhat clinical "penis" and the childishly euphemistic "rear end".For consistency's sake, I think, you might have been better with "penis", "faeces" and "anus" (the clinical option), or "pee-pee", "poo" and "rear end" (the euphemistic option) or maybe "prick", "excrement" and "bottom" (as a compromise).Personally, I prefer the straightforward terminology of "cock", "shit" and "arse", but I do appreciate the neurotic insecurities of infantile moralists as regards such "vulgar" words, hence my offer of the above options should you wish to communicate your personal idiosyncrasies to other similarly shameless "Sodomites" who, I am sure, will find your unsolicited comments as amusing as I do. But this is drifting off-topic...

Anyway, the point is, coprophilia is a fetish quite distinct in its own right, no more intrinsically linked to homosexuality or heterosexuality than any similar fetish, and one which isn't even remotely... to my taste, shall we say.I'll refrain from detailing those kinks I do have, but I'll happily confess my utter bemusement when it comes to scat fetishists.(Piss and blood fetishes similarly leave me cold, though were you to ask me to urinate in your mouth or carve the word "cocksucker" in your chest with a razor blade, I would probably be happy to oblige.)Personally, I find the smell of shit on someone's arse quite off-putting, do not really appreciate it on my cock, and certainly don't want to be licking it off anyone else's.

With the scenario you envisage, Barry, this would be easily avoidable with a degree of personal hygiene that most would consider a minimal requirement.An ability to wipe one's own arse so that it does not stink of shit is generally considered a lower limit of acceptability.To allow one's arse to remain in such a state of disregard that a cock coming into contact with it would be smeared with shit or the stench of it would, in most circles, be considered... uncivilised to say the least.Personally, I would have thought this sufficiently obvious as to not require explanation, but under the presumption that your mother failed to teach you the basics of sanitation, and that you have somehow, by some staggering lack of ingenuity, failed to work this out for yourself, I am happy to enlighten you in this matter: for the sake of yourself and anyone in close proximity, you really ought to wipe your arse after every shit, the more thoroughly the better.If your revulsion at all things anal is such that you can't bring yourself to deal with those taboo nether regions, I suggest you think of investing in a bidet.I feel sure this would cleanse you enough that, were I to sodomise you with gay abandon but withdraw before the point of climax, turn you around and cum into your mouth rather than your arse, all you would taste would be the salty tang of my spunk, with nary a hint of shit.

In fact, however, this is a fairly unlikely scenario.I'm not sure why you assume this particular combination of (reciprocal) sodomy directly followed by (reciprocal) fellatio to be the norm, unless perhaps your fixation is indicative of some particular and specific fantasy on your part, a revulsion that is simultaneously fascination, a focus of attention betraying some sort of interest repressed to the point of neurotic obsession.Given the possibility that this is the situation, I would encourage you to address this personal issue.If you study the research you will find that many of those who profess to the deepest revulsion at the thought of sodomy (to the point even of identifying as homophobic), show greater degrees of arousal when exposed to gay pornography than those for whom it is of little or no concern.With this in mind, perhaps you should use the wonders of the internet to furnish you with some hot man-on-man action in jpeg or avi form, in order to verify your own proclivities. You might well find a whole new way of life opening up to you, in facing and accepting a hitherto denied aspect of your sexual identity.

Even a cursory examination of gay pornography, in fact, would probably be of educational benefit to you.At the very least it would offer you some other permutations to the sodomy-fellatio combination you take as standard.You'll find that a far more common scenario (and more sensible if you're concerned by your own inconsistency or incompetence as regards arse-wiping) is the inverse of this, in which the reciprocal fellatio comes first, serving as foreplay prior to the act of sodomy.Using a condom (as I'd strongly advise if you wish to test this out by way of some casual pick-up from an appropriate night-club, public park or toilet) or simply showering between each sexual escapade, as I'd assume you do (though this is not perhaps, on the evidence, an assumption I should be making with yourself), is pretty much certain to eradicate all likelihood of any unsavoury flavouring to the cock in your mouth.

Should you choose this option, you would also be deprived of the salty taste of semen squirting in gouts into your throat, to be swallowed or spat out, though I suspect that you might not consider this a terrible loss.If you feel inclined to try bareback (though I'd urge you only to do so, if you feel you must, in the context of a loving and faithful monogamous relationship) you will probably, however, find the sensation of someone cumming inside you quite an experience.Ejaculating inside another is obviously intensely enjoyable, but you might well find that, in attempting this reciprocal fellatio-and-sodomy, already stimulated to a sublime degree by some good old-fashioned sixty-nine, if you then allow your partner to take the active position first, it may not actually reach that point.Given the position of the male G-spot, it's entirely possible that you'll cum quite copiously and exquisitely as your lover thrusts and spurts inside you.

In fact, as lacking in egalitarian spirit as it may sound, the rigid reciprocity you assume is not entirely mandatory in these situations because the act is really quite enjoyable for both parties.An alternative scenario, one you'll encounter quite often in the gay pornography you come across (no pun intended) during your explorations, would involve you fellating your lover to climax and then sodomising him for your own pleasure.Even if he does not ejaculate a second time (which is entirely possible), he may well find the sensation easily pleasurable enough as to be far from a chore.Or vice-versa; if you are so deeply repelled by the thought of a cock which has been in an ass subsequently being in your mouth, perhaps you would prefer to be fellated to climax yourself and then sodomised by your lover, offering yourself up to him for his pleasure.

Alternatively you might take a similar approach but invert the order, let him fuck you then suck you, which would equally avoid any risk of suffering the scent or taste of shit on cock.Or again, fucking him and then sucking him is, naturally, another permutation you could try... though you might find you lack the energy to carry out the second part with flair in the post-coital languor following the first.Either way, my point is, there are multiple permutations of pleasures to be got from cock and arse or cock and lips, none of which need involve anything so unpalatable as the scenario you present.

In fact, a high proportion of male-male couples, you will find, should you choose to venture bravely into the polymorphous world of perversity, end up adopting a division of roles -- one active (a "top", as we sodomites say), the other passive (a "bottom", in the same parlance), each preferring one position to the other.Many, of course, are versatile, but for some it is, to coin a phrase, better to give than to receive, and it may be the same for you or it might be quite the opposite.Perhaps you will find that what you enjoy most is being penetrated to the depth of your fundament by some boyish buck or muscled macho-man, having him bend you over and thrust his rock hard cock inside you, fuck you hard like the bitch you are.

Perhaps not.Perhaps you'd be more suited to the active role.Maybe you'd rather have that hot muscle mary or twink on their knees in front of you, their lips around your cock, or bent over or beneath you as you fuck them senseless.But if the idea disturbs you deeply for another reason, if your disgust at anal intercourse is rooted in some anxious but somehow persistent imaginings of yourself in the "unmanly" role of submission, let me assure you that there is nothing to be ashamed of in this desire.The relationship of active and passive partners, tops and bottoms, need not be significant of anything other than the physicality itself.Even if they are, if there is a part of you that wants to surrender itself utterly because you seek somehow to be filled with another's manhood, you might rather think of this as a sacred ritual, a sacrifice of ego on the altar of the flesh, in the name of that most holy of powers: love.Halle-fuckin-lujah, brother.

Indeed, if you want to get properly kinky about it, maybe you'll find that what you really want is to be wholly dominated, fucked rough and nasty, tied down to a bed, a dog-collar round your neck, while your master tells you just how low and worthless you are, bitch-slaps you with his every insult and dismissive sneer.Maybe that would thrill you, Barry, to be called a Sodomite, a dung-lover, a cocksucking bitch not worthy of licking his own shit off my throbbing cock.When you use the word "Sodomite" in your email and the phrase "true Jew" in your email address, after all, I scent the shitty stench on the miniscule flaccid prick of that homophobic, anti-Semitic Christian fundamentalism in which Old Testament mores are divine decrees but actual Jews are the ones who turned from God by "denying the Messiah".I sense a sheep who loves his shepherd, has utter faith, absolute obedience, even as he leads you to the slaughter, a docile follower who can't imagine a life not driven by that shepherd's stick, herded by the bark and nip of the dogs of fear.I sense a good slave in you, Barry, one for whom submission is second nature.Would you bleat for me as you bleat for your god?

I might be happy to help you explore this aspect of yourself, if you are man enough to face your own fantasies, but I'd have to be clear in the fact that I have standards.If you are as ugly in physical form as the picture of your personality painted by your email, if you are as fat and formless, saggy and baggy as your fatuous "reasoning", if you are as geriatric and decrepit, as deformed and limping, as arthritically inflexible as your obsolete belief-system, if you are a literally dribbling moron, as repellent in body as you are in spirit, I would have to accept my own shallow aestheticism and recoil from you in absolute abhorrence.If my cock were a barge pole I wouldn't wave it in your direction, never mind touch you, never mind fuck you with it.

In truth -- and I say this sadly -- even if I could, in some spirit of merciful pity and compassionate charity, overcome the nausea, the bitter burning acid taste of vomit rising in my throat at the sight of such a misshapen thing, I fear I could not bring myself to contaminate my cock through contact with the shit that is you, Barry, the disease-carrying, decaying, filthy, stinking, smearing excreta of faecal matter that you are.If I am "DEFINITE" in any respect it is that I am not a lover of "dung", Barry, which, I am sad to say, means I could never love you, never make love to you, however you might beg, a steaming sculpture of dung in the shape of a human being, as much as I might understand that the soilings of beasts are only a part of the natural order of things.Were I to walk into you unexpectedly as I went blithely upon my way, minding my own business, I would only be sure to wipe you from my shoe with a tissue, scrape you off upon some step or grass verge, or wash you away in the nearest puddle, and walk on.

I am in awe by your ownership of the English language, your wit, your logic. Would I were a man, then I could beg you to penetrate me in one of the many ways you depicted, for I find the proper use of words to be about the sexiest thing ever.

Though I am a straight male I feel I must state "I am THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!!" because Hal holy Hesus on a fucking stick you are one fine fisker. I am in awe and have, ever so correctly, in tribute dubbed myself a devout follower of THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!! I think we all need tee shirts...boat drinks?

BTW, "dung" is in the King James Bible (aka God's Word according to some literalists), whereupon we find this coprophiliac passage in Isaiah 36:12:

"But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

And whilst I can't help but doubt "barry" will ever read it, I'm probably not the only person to drift in from the interwebs (via Making Light in my case), enjoy the rant and then be curious enough to buy Vellum. So thanks, barry!

Having dabbled in the 'posterior polka' in my youth it never would have occurred to me to turn around and put into my mouth that which had just come from my 'rear end'. I find the idea about as appetizing as haggis and custard.

What is truly sad is that these moral crusaders don't care a whit about the person they castigate -- they're simply looking for a target for their scorn, someone to provide them with that holier-than-thou ego boost.

Which is what makes your reply even more scathing. If he manages to read your screed I'm sure whatever boost of confidence 'Barry' received from his ill-advised email will evaporate like so much fog in the heat of the sun.

"In the last fifty years, several historians, notably Derrick Sherwin Bailey and John Boswell, have tried to show, based partly on biblical references to Sodom other than that in Genesis and partly on seemingly more open attitudes towards homosexuality in the primitive Church, that the "sin" of its inhabitants was not originally interpreted as homosexuality, but rather as a lack of hospitality, a duty considered of the utmost importance in the Ancient world."

I hope you'll forgive me, but I must point out that four dots is perfectly acceptable English. It indicates a period followed by an ellipsis. So "THE...." obviously was intended to constitute the entire sentence. Not only does that lead one down the path of sussing out the intended acronym (Total Hedonistic Etymologist or Totally Hot for Erections?), but it makes the spoken title more enigmatic. A bold "THE" followed by a complete stop. Then a pregnant pause. It's glorious as an intro. I cannot wait to get to use it.

Finishing that Manifesto of Homosexuals, forgive me the use of that be-lamented clinical term, only leaves me bemused that I haven't spontaneously combusted into a raging Sodomite. I figure I should be glad of that, to know that my identity is secure enough to escape a life hanging upheaval effected by a blog. Now it's time to forward this link to my Christian Fundamentalist acquaintances...

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while, and your command of English is brilliant.

Tentatively at first, and then with rising heat and passion, I emailed this to a lot of people. I almost wish I was gay, just so I could be a citizen of Sodom, something that straight people, of course, aren't and never will be.

While I greatly enjoyed the response, and the original email tbh, both in their own way, and while Mr. Duncan's mastery of language was itself a pleasure to peruse outside any context, let us remember we are an audience predisposed to condemn the one while proclaiming the other.

Barry, and I doubt there was any depth of strategy involved, has won a victory. Him and his can't even follow Mr. Duncan's response for the most part, and would see in it the "fancy talk" of those who do not "serve" God, if they could. By posting Barry's email Mr. Duncan has acknowledged that Barry said something worth replying to. In the big scheme, it was worth it for such a response should be shared with those amongst the public who appreciate wit and its ilk.

People like Barry are becoming more, not less common, and globally, not just in the semi retarded liberal tinged gradually declining behemoth which still runs the show. Intellect, at least through the format labeled dialogue, is unlikely to succeed in overcoming the inanity of such burgeoning movements. There is too much money in them and they are, in their own way, necessary unless our eventual goal is a earth where women where veils with their smocks, but that is a different tale.

There will be a reckoning, and if all the side of free thought brings to the battle is talk and "truth" and the unconquerability of the human intellect, our great grandchildren will kneel and worship, and cocks and arses will only meet in shadows.

And it will be a sad little world again. If you could, Mr. Duncan, tell him my kind are prowling for him, wordless. Proper grammar, as any decent nun can tell you, is best instilled with a ruler and a decided lack of empathy.

You, sir, are made of epic win. That was utterly brilliant and masterfully crafted. In fact, almost intimidatingly so. I have informed my wife to take a mental note for me: never fuck with Hal Duncan, for he will destroy you with words and a smile.

It's a shame that that lovely argument would be utterly wasted on the person who inspired it, but I know we certainly enjoyed it. "Would you bleat for me as you bleat for your god?" is quote-worthy, though the entire passage has its merits.

On the inside, I go 'yay.'I read Vellum last summer, and loved the book, but have been too retarded to get Ink yet. Until now. Now, after reading this epitome of awesome, I must go out and get that sequel, as it is the only way I can ever come close to even halfway repaying you for the privilege of getting to read this. Thank you very much.

It's always people who claim to be upholding the strict Bible view (like that moron) who never actually seem to have studied the text well enough. The sin of Sodom wasn't anal sex or homosexuality, it was inhospitableness and rape. His rant is not only ungrammatical, dull and witless, it's ignorant - the capping sin!